The contact hypothesis – which proposes that positive intergroup contact fosters positive intergroup attitudes – has been abundantly supported by evidence. Because of this empirical success, the contact hypothesis has been widely applied as a conflict resolution tool in the form of planned contact interventions. In the Israeli-Palestinian context, the Oslo II Agreement (1995) included the commitment to a “People-to-People Programme” which would fund hundreds of grassroot-led projects designed to foster dialogue and peace between Palestinians and Israelis. With the deterioration of the peace process, such initiatives became increasingly criticized within Palestinian society. Interestingly, a core element of these criticisms has been echoed in social psychological research pointing to a potential downside of intergroup contact: for disadvantaged group members, positive contact with their advantaged counterparts might diminish their aspirations for social justice (the ‘sedative effect’).
The discussion will be structured in two parts. First, I will discuss recent research suggesting that the sedative effect might be better explained by a lack of negative contact. I will then present two studies – one among migrants in Belgium and one among Palestinians in the West Bank and East-Jerusalem – which suggest that specific forms of negative contact might cancel the sedative effect (the ‘reminder effect’ hypothesis). In the second part, I will discuss the meaning of intergroup contact from the perspective of Palestinians in the occupied territories. I will delineate the political circumstances that saw the emergence of Palestinian movement rejecting the “normalization” (tabi’, تطبيع) of relations with Israelis and discuss some preliminary findings on the role of the normalization label in shaping norms about intergroup contact among Palestinians.